He might also read the guidelines on how Eric wants articles posted, so as to avoid copyright issues. This is at least the second time he hadn't bothered to follow Eric's rules.

As far as being a cop goes - he is one, IIRC. But, I think he's small town somewhere in Ohio. Small town work is a lot different than big city work, as we all know. I also seem to recollect he's on at least his 2nd agency, and that he's caused trolling problems in this forum before.

So what your saying, to butcher the late, great Mel Brooks "what we got here is one of them self hating Cops".

__________________Note:All of the above expressed opinions above are those of the poster. No representation is made that the above post construes legal advice or is to be considered as anything but the personal opinion of the poster. View at your own Peril.

I don't regularly comment in these types of threads, but the discussion here caught my attention, mainly this line here:

"Cuz its clear that all any of you guys want to hear is praise, worship and positive reinforcement from your peers. And when someone, anyone comes here and does not tow the party lien they are immediately case aside as a heretic or troll."

Its not about a party line, or anything like it. Cops are cut from all sorts of cloth, and have about every differing opinion under the sun. Myself, I probably am pretty far right on a lot of things, but that is irrelevant. The impression that I get is that you have missed something important - that we are all "cops," and realistically, often times the ONLY person we can count on to have our best interests in mind is another blue uniform at o-dark-thirty in an alley, or the side of a lonely highway. Not supervisors, admin, the public - but other cops. You leave the distinct impression from about all your posts in all your threads you could give a damn about your brothers and sisters in uniform, and have some sort of axe to grind. I don't know what it is, or why - but it taints everything you put up here, and makes it hard to look at without rolling one's eyes. That impression is what makes people think you are a heretic or troll, not the material you post. I guarantee you that 95% of it is in the delivery, not the actual package.

To address the article. It's a mediocre piece that obviously skirts around the totality of the circumstances to push an angle. I don't know the author or his/her work, but if this piece is indicative of the quality of material he/she produces on a regular basis, clearly they have not graduated to the "big leagues." Even a relative newcomer would have the common sense to look at the totality of circumstances, which the others have touched on here. I think media sensationalism is part of the perception.

Whether or not this is an "anti-cop trend" I can only tell you that from personal experience, and five years on the job there is something seriously wrong with people now, and it sure as heck seems like we are hated more than ever, or perhaps criminals are just emboldened by an apathetic judiciary. What makes it worse are the guys we have "working for a paycheck" who look out for themselves first, and everyone else including their squadmates second.

It's a dangerous job, and its getting more dangerous. Experience and numbers support that. The sociologist in me tells me its a million different things contributing to it. Calling it an anti-cop trend seems to make sense.

Its not about being worshiped or even patted on the back, but the last thing we want when we log onto a web site, we exchange ideas, we tell each other its okay and in general support each other because no one else will. Its articles, and people like the OP, who I would bet if he is in fact a cop, is a real joy to work with, that make us pigeon hole ourselves and avoid contact with the general public, admin and pretty much anyone else that questions our right and legally justified actions.

If I'm super conservative, so be it. I'm also a proud member of the thin blue line.

There's definitely an anti-cop trend... Granted not all of the cop haters are trying to kill us. Some of them are writing news articles or posting on Internet messageboards.

And for that we should be thankful. However you never know how much it will take to move from just words to actions. It's my opinion that very few people wake up one day and say, I wanna shoot at the police. If I made a guess is that you would find a pattern of talking themselves up to it, or watching/reading stuff to edge them up to that level.

__________________Note:All of the above expressed opinions above are those of the poster. No representation is made that the above post construes legal advice or is to be considered as anything but the personal opinion of the poster. View at your own Peril.

JSandi's spelling, grammar, and sentence structure are not up to the standards of the ancient knuckle dragger LEO's still around.

If he's going to pose, at least get a program to check to spelling/grammar...

__________________"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened."

"If you have integrity, nothing else matters. If you don't have integrity, nothing else matters".

"A person who won't reason has no advantage over one who can't reason."

"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."

“Ignorance is a lot like alcohol: the more you have of it, the less you are able to see its effect on you.”

Originally Posted by Rooster Rugburn:Didn't the whole sheepdog thing actually start right here on Glock Talk? A bunch of wannabees bought a bunch of T-shirts and took an oath to defend those who won't defend themselves?

Hi everybody. I've not posted on GT in quite a long time, but I've spent the last couple days looking through a lot of the FBI's LEOKA data (for an unrelated matter, trying to dig up some data to combat some "cop-killer bullet" silliness going on in California right now).

I have to say that having looked at the data, I'm increasingly of the opinion that the "war on cops" articles I've been reading recently are yet another example of media sensationalism run amok. Looking at several LEOKA documents (including the one linked above by Patchman), you can see that once you control for the total number of officers the proportional number of assaults have decreased steadily and substantially since the '90s. The LEOKA reports these numbers are from are 2009, 2000, and 1996 (important because there are some year-to-year adjustments, but that variability isn't enough to skew the results significantly).

Is there something that I'm missing here?

I'm just curious, Dr Rockso, about the interpretations of the percentages. As per your post, in 1987, 16.85 % of LEOs were assaulted. In 2009, 10.30 % were assaulted. So in academia, what percentage of a population being assaulted is considered "reasonable?"

I mean, for example, if in 1987, 16.85 % of the Asian population in the U.S. were assaulted, and by 2009, only 10.30 % of Asian were assaulted, would that be considered OK? A great improvement? Why are they even complaining?

In the same time frame, 1987 to 2009, what percentage of America were victims of assaults?

And of course, how does LE's self-initiated Officer Survival movement that started in the early 1970s come into play? To imply that LE, statistically, is only getting safer because society is far less violent, is false.

__________________Although many good citizens own and carry guns, keeping communities safe still fall on those who carry badges.

In a gun fight, even if you do everything right, you can still get killed.

I'm just curious, Dr Rockso, about the interpretations of the percentages. As per your post, in 1987, 16.85 % of LEOs were assaulted. In 2009, 10.30 % were assaulted. So in academia, what percentage of a population being assaulted is considered "reasonable?"

I mean, for example, if in 1987, 16.85 % of the Asian population in the U.S. were assaulted, and by 2009, only 10.30 % of Asians were assaulted, would that be considered OK? A great improvement? Why are they even complaining?

In the same time frame, 1987 to 2009, what percentage of America were victims of assaults?

Of course I'd like the number of assaults to be zero, and I'm in no way suggesting that LEOs don't get assaulted at much higher rates than the general population. What I am saying, though, is that the perception given by media articles is that the problem has escalated to an all-time high, which, as far as I can tell, just isn't supported by reality.

If you ask an average person what the current crime rate is relative to what it was 10 years ago, they'll almost invariably tell you that it's higher despite the fact that just isn't true. There's a strong bias toward sensationalism in the media that just causes people to constantly think that things are awful, and rarely are these sorts of things actually put into context.

An unfortunate side effect of media sensationalism (despite the fact that it makes people believe things that aren't so) is that, especially in regards to perceptions surrounding crime and law enforcement, it tends to give politicians a big incentive to look like they're "doing something". As gun owners, that doesn't typically end well for us.

Jsandi reminds me of a guy at work. The only difference is that he throws out liberal stuff to be the contrarian. If you argue with him he gets all jazzed and happy. If you ignore him and go about his business.

I guess Jsandi is "that guy."

__________________
I wonder if your assessment of "The Wizard of Oz" would sound something like "A teenaged orphan runs away with three psychotic AD/HD patients and a little dog. She kills the first two women she meets." --Sinecure 07/03/2006
Freakin' awsome!! Kickin it old school. Hot sheet on the dash. The report was probably only two sentences. Long live Rencko and Bobbie Hill!--WhiskeyT

Jsandi reminds me of a guy at work. The only difference is that he throws out liberal stuff to be the contrarian. If you argue with him he gets all jazzed and happy. If you ignore him and go about his business.

OP, NO friggin way are you in LE. If you spewed this crap to ANY agency YOU would be crucified by your own guys. Not to mention you are a **ssy, with too much time to research your agenda. What the heck, get a ticket once and feel you were screwed over?

As for the link to the post regarding the 84yr old guy that got into the scuffle, see above comment, second sentance.